You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!

Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.

Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.

Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide

This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.

This is the first "blog" of any kind I've ever had, so it's probably not the greatest...

Just a little snippet about me:

I'd like to consider myself relatively tech-savvy; obviously I use Linux (Arch to be precise; K.I.S.S. FTW), and I enjoy learning new things about computers in general (both software and hardware-related).

This blog is mostly just for whenever I feel like telling the world about my experiences with computers/Linux (or just life in general), or just posting for the hell of it.

Everything outside "the norm" is a disease/disorder now…

Blargh. Yet another rant. I swear, the "rant" tag in my tag cloud is gonna get so big as to totally obscure the other ones eventually…

Anyways:

I know I probably spend way too much time on and/or put way too much stock into Wikipedia, but I just got done reading the article on "Medicalization", and I must say, that seems to be the way things are going (at least here in the US): basically a pill for everything that "cures what ails ya", for an increasingly rigid definition of "what ails ya".

I swear, next thing you know they'll be clinicalizing fscking hobbies and interests; they'll be saying that a hobby in computers is a fscking problem that needs to be treated or at least moderated. They'll be saying that a profound interest in anime* (or cartoons/animation in general) is a personality flaw that needs to be corrected. Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but they already do it with people who are way into cartoons/fiction, who see it as their escape from/enhancement to the dullness of reality: they call it "schizoid personality disorder". WTF? Why does every single little personality quirk that deviates from the "norm" have to be considered a bad thing? Why does everyone have to meet some arbitrary universal standard set by medical and/or governmental organizations? I'm no conspiracy theorist (meaning: I don't think this is all part of some grand NWO scheme or anything ), but it seems like there are certain people out there who are simply looking to bring in more profits and more control. Namely, the pharmaceutical companies ("Big Pharma", as some people like to blanket them under) and psychiatrists.

Don't get me wrong, people can (and do) have unhealthy obsessions with things, but does that mean everyone with any kind of "abnormal" interest should have to give up everything they ever knew entirely, for the sake of being "normal, like everyone else"? I say no! I absolutely refuse to give my current self up for the sake of being "normal" (read: unwashed, uncreative, and unexciting). I'd much rather be given the chance to work through whatever "problems" I have on my own (if they really are "problems" at all), rather than having pills shoved down my throat just because I don't meet some arbitrary "standard".

…but of course there are the usual comebacks from proponents of the current (increasingly popular) methods: either the more layman-oriented "you're just seeing the world through rose-colored glasses" argument, stating that by going with the program, you're "taking off the glasses to see the world for what it really is", or the more philosophical/scientific argument, for those of us who are more inclined in that direction and/or are afraid of losing their identity:

Quote:

We're all just biological machines anyway; one neurochemical state (i.e. a thought or emotion) is no less 'real' than another, no matter what the cause behind it is, be it 'natural' biochemistry or 'artificially altered' biochemistry (really now, what's the difference, empirically?). Don't bother arguing back with 'free will' or the 'inner self' because neither actually exist. 'Free will' is an illusion caused by the fact that we don't have conscious access to all the motives behind our behaviors/thoughts/emotions (see Benjamin Libet's experiments for an introduction to this idea). The 'inner self' is just another poorly-formed dualistic 'soul'-like concept, asserting that deep down underneath all the biochemical processes going on in our brains, there is some kind of immutable 'real self' that ultimately defines who we are as a person. This is nonsense and a thing of shamanistic, dualist thinking. That 'inner self' is a direct result of those biochemical processes, like it or not; you can't argue with the facts. The drugs might change those biochemical processes that constitute the 'inner you', but it's still 'you'. Just take the goddamned pill and live a normal life like everyone else. You're still 'you' either way; get over it.

**

This basically translates into "we will change you in ways that you only think you don't want, and there's nothing you'll be able to do about it, because we'll be bending your very identity and personal will according to our standards".

…now just watch as this post gets a bunch of negative comments about how I'm just biased and unwilling to try certain things "just because they seem scary/dehumanizing"…

(* - I only use this as an example; I'm not an anime freak or anything…)
(** - I wrote this myself; it's not copypasta from some other site/forum, though it reasonably could be, given the seemingly prevailing attitude among more "sciency" types: fsck your personal values, let's mess with your brain chemistry in the name of SCIENCE! )

Comments

Hi welcome to earth. Here the animals like to eat things that alter their brain chemistry and the way they sense the world. This can bee seen in many species including humans. As with all beings claiming to be intelligent, they try to comprehend the world and make sense of it. As intergalactic beings we know that no answer is correct. Now has anybody seen my stash?

The truth is that Drugs (including alcohol, caffeine and nicotine) are a part of society because it lets us forget our normal state of being for just a moment. If you don't take any of that then more power to you. You feel normal 24/7. The truth is, many people suffer from debilitating normalcy that makes them unable to cope with that state. Either it be depression, anxiety, or so called shyness which could be a form of social anxiety. This could also be any number of symptoms that you may not believe in but do exist. There are medications that actually can help these things. But in a world without Drugs, nature would take care of it self. Population would be reduced, people would suffer and die, and the strong would survive. Is either of these situations a good outcome? Who cares? Such things are out of my control. Complaining about society doesn't make it better.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that the definition of what constitutes "depression" or "social anxiety" is becoming more and more broad all the time; it's reaching a point where it's (allegedly) taking a toll on social diversity. I'm not saying we should ban drugs altogether, I'm just saying that we shouldn't be so broad with our classification of what constitutes "mental illness". Hell, some people (myself included) actually like being a certain way, even if they're technically classed under what would be called "mentally ill/disabled".

I will admit that I probably went a little over-the-top with the examples (I don't genuinely think anyone wants to medicate you for being interested in computers ), but I think the point is that at the same time, psychiatrists are (seemingly) going over-the-top with their diagnoses, to the point where just being a geek/nerd is/can be considered a "mental illness". Hell, most people who have a strong hobby with computers/technology are supposedly on the mild end of the autism spectrum: Asperger's Syndrome. Shy around people? Have difficulty telling how others are feeling? Have a profound interest in any one thing? Sorry, you've got a problem, which needs to be treated. Now granted, the first two things I can get, but the last one? Why take that away? It's like it's an either/or situation: either stay the way you are and never be able to interact with "normal" people for the rest of your life, or go with the treatment plan, and be able to interact with "normal" people, but never be able to take profound interest in what you used to like ever again. Choose. (Oh wait, you have no "choice"; it's been determined since the beginning of the universe! Oh well…we'll just see what happens, then. )

TL;DR: My opinion is pretty much that society is becoming more and more fatalistic (i.e. that people can't take care of themselves; we're being seen more as malfunctioning machines than people in need of human care), and is seeing drugs/medication more and more as being the ideal (if not the only) solution to all of life's "problems" (whether they're really problems or not, to those "afflicted").

I think that people need to educate them self on what is appropriate for them. The general rule of thumb that I would expect any psychologist to say is "Does how you feel now negatively affect your life in ways that you can not deal with?" and "Would you like to try various methods to improve the situation?"

Everything is a per person situation. The problem is that you will inevitably get people that don't know anything and will do whatever the Doctor says. And the Doctor may be the type that eats up the propaganda from the pharmaceuticals. Or worse, is paid money by them to recommend the prescription.

I would also like to believe that a pill is not the doctors first solution. I would hope that they would first try to identify how the person lives and what their diet is. It's amazing how good a person can feel by cutting sugar and caffeine from their diet and doing a little exercise. The problem is getting over the hump to feel motivated enough to do it in the first place.

Other than media propaganda, I don't honestly know what the industry does about these problems. That's only what I would hope would happen. It ultimately doesn't matter if it's true or not as I'm not going to do anything to change it. This seems to be a growing theme with me. There are so many things to be upset about in the world. Why worry about the ones that don't personally affect you or that you are going to do nothing to change the situation?

Anyway, as for the symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome and Autism, I don't think there are pills that can help with them. The symptom isn't a matter of wanting to feel a part of the group but not knowing how, it's not feeling a need to be social or understanding the reason for it. From the stuff that I've read is that extreme Autism, the person doesn't realize that the sounds people make are even forms of communication. Literally, everybody are organic meat sacks. But I don't have it so I can't fully understand it.